Followers
Sunday, November 30, 2025
ARE SABAHANS SHOWING THE WAY?
Saturday, November 8, 2025
NOSERISM: Defining Israel’s Control Over American Policy
Introduction: The Need for Conceptual Precision
In political science, few relationships are as complex and
often misunderstood as that between the United States and Israel. Many analysts
describe this dynamic as “The Israel Lobby,” “Foreign-Policy Capture,” or
“Client-State Dynamics.” Each term captures part of the reality, yet none fully
defines the phenomenon in which a smaller nation appears to exercise
disproportionate influence over a larger, more powerful one.
To address this gap, this paper proposes a new term -
Noserism - to describe this particular form of influence: when a powerful
actor, while outwardly sovereign, is subtly directed by another through
ideological, financial, or political leverage. The term is inspired by the
Malay proverb “seperti kerbau dicucuk hidung” - “like a buffalo led by the
nose.” Meaning, someone is being led, controlled, or manipulated like a
buffalo that is guided by a ring in its nose. It evokes the image of strength
without direction, power without autonomy.
This is not a moral judgment, nor a political accusation.
It is an attempt at precise definition - to give policymakers, scholars, and
journalists a clear term for describing such asymmetrical yet non-coercive
relationships.
Why Getting the Definition Right Matters
In serious research, defining a concept is not an act of
wordiness but of precision. Every key term - whether power, culture, or justice,
anchors the logic of an entire argument.
How a concept is defined determines what counts as evidence, which theories
apply, and what conclusions are valid.
Concepts evolve across disciplines; terms like colonialism,
hegemony, or soft power carry different meanings in political science,
sociology, and international relations. A rigorous definition acknowledges
earlier thinkers, competing schools, and the intellectual traditions that
shaped the term. This situating process demonstrates both academic honesty and
intellectual continuity.
Furthermore, language shapes perception. Defining freedom
as “absence of interference” leads to a liberal worldview, whereas defining it
as “capacity for self-realization” yields a communitarian one. Similarly,
calling U.S.–Israel relations a lobby, a capture, or a client-state dependency
changes how we interpret the motives and mechanisms behind policy decisions.
Thus, to define Noserism is to make thought transparent - to bring analytical
clarity where ambiguity breeds confusion.
Finally, good definitions can themselves create new
knowledge. When Marx redefined capital, or when Edward Said reframed
Orientalism, they transformed how the world understood economics and culture.
In the same spirit, a precise definition of Noserism offers scholars and
practitioners a new lens through which to interpret power, influence, and
leverage in modern geopolitics.
The Sacred Act of Naming
The effort to define Noserism is not merely academic - it
continues a profound spiritual and intellectual tradition rooted in revelation
itself. For example, both the Qur’an and the Bible emphasize that knowledge
begins with naming.
“And He taught Adam the names - all of them.” (Qur’an 2:31)
In this moment, the Qur’an portrays the act of naming as
the birth of human reason: the ability to categorize, symbolize, and
understand. Unlike other creatures who act by instinct, humans think by naming.
To name is to perceive; to define is to create order from chaos. Definition,
therefore, is sacred - it mirrors divine wisdom in understanding the world.
The Bible echoes this truth:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
Here, “the Word” (Logos) is both language and reason - the
bridge between divine intention and human comprehension. Thus, when scholars
labor to define culture, justice, or Noserism, they are participating in an
ancient continuity thus bringing clarity and moral order through the power of
words.
In the Qur’an, the story of Adam continues with his
appointment as khalifah (steward) of creation (Qur’an 2:30–39). Humanity’s
first duty was epistemological: to understand and name the world rightly. Every
generation, therefore, must renew this act - to name realities truthfully so
that moral and intellectual balance is maintained. Misnaming leads to
distortion; accurate naming restores justice.
Toward a Definition of Noserism
Noserism (noun) refers to a political condition in which a
powerful nation or leader is guided or influenced by a subtler external actor
through non-coercive means — such as ideological alignment and leverage,
financial dependence, or strategic guilt.
It is distinct from neo-colonialism, which describes
domination by economic dependence, and from hegemony, which denotes overt
leadership. Instead, Noserism captures the paradox of controlled strength,
where the dominant party appears to lead but in practice is led.
The term can apply beyond U.S.–Israel relations. It can
describe any scenario in which influence flows upward - where the nominally
stronger actor behaves according to the strategic design of a smaller or
subtler power.
Comparative Framework
To situate Noserism
within the broader evolution of political control, it is useful to compare it
with related frameworks that describe different forms of domination and
influence throughout history.
Colonialism represents direct
occupation and administrative control, where one state
rules another through physical presence, military force, and political
governance. It is the most overt form of domination.
Settler Colonialism goes a step further by seeking permanent occupation and demographic replacement.
Rather than merely exploiting resources or governing a territory, the colonizer
settles the land, displaces or assimilates the indigenous population, and
establishes new political and cultural structures. Historical examples include
the European settlement of the Americas, Australia, and Palestine.
Neo-colonialism replaces occupation with economic dependence. The colonized
nation is politically independent but economically bound, its policies shaped
by trade, debt, and foreign investment - as Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad observed,
“we may be politically free, but we are still economically colonised.”
Hegemony refers to leadership
and dominance, often by a superpower, sustained through consent
rather than coercion. The hegemon leads by projecting values, alliances, and
institutional influence — as seen in post–World War II American global
leadership.
Noserism, by contrast, captures a subtler inversion: an ideological or psychological manipulation of a
stronger actor by a smaller one. It
describes situations where the more powerful state, though possessing vast
military and economic strength, is directed by another through emotional,
ideological, or narrative leverage. It is influence without overt coercion. Control
achieved through the soft reins of belief, guilt, identity alignment or manipulation
- the politics of being “led by the nose.”
Naming as Moral Clarity
Defining Noserism is not a political accusation but an act
of conceptual honesty. In the field of international relations, precise
language is the foundation of analytical integrity. By naming a phenomenon
accurately, scholars make it visible and therefore discussable.
Colonialism once exposed the brutality of empire;
neo-colonialism revealed hidden economic subjugation. In the same way, Noserism
opens space for understanding how influence can flow in unexpected directions -
from the weaker to the stronger - through emotional, ideological, or
psychological channels.
The goal of naming, as both revelation and reason teach us,
is clarity. The Qur’an reminds us that God “taught Adam the names of all
things,” making the act of definition the beginning of knowledge. The Bible
echoes, “In the beginning was the Word,” affirming that truth itself begins
with articulation. To define clearly is to act in that same lineage - restoring
balance through truthful naming.
By offering Noserism as a precise term, we aim not to judge
but to understand; not to condemn, but to clarify. For in the realm of ideas,
moral order begins with linguistic order - and when we name rightly, we see
rightly.
Peace.
Anas Zubedy
Penang
Friday, November 7, 2025
THE ILLUSTRIOUS MALAY WORLD SEAFARING HISTORY
Saturday, November 1, 2025
I LITE U? What We Can Learn from a Flicker of Controversy
The
debate over the “I Lite U” campaign is healthy. Whether to promote Malaysia in
English or Malay is a valid discussion – but it should be guided by marketing
logic, not sentiment. The goal must be to promote our country while staying
true to our soul.
While it
is logical to use a language that the target market understands best, the real
creative challenge and wisdom lie in marrying communication with who we are –
our product, service, and offerings.
However,
my first concern is this: while we debate its language, “I Lite U” is not good
English or good communication in the first place.
As
someone trained in marketing, with experience in copywriting and running
campaigns, I would like to first comment on this poor choice of English words
and campaign communication.
The word lite
is a slang form of light, often used in marketing to mean low-calorie
(as in “Coke Lite”) – not illumination. Using “I Lite U” as a phrase to mean “I
light you up” or “I illuminate you” is grammatically incorrect. To English
speakers, “I Lite U” sounds childish or like text-speak (“I luv u”), which
undermines the seriousness of a government tourism campaign.
Are we
targeting kids or adults who have the money to spend?
Foreigners
may not understand what the phrase actually means – who is “I”? What is being
lit? It could even be misread as a personal romantic message (“I light you” =
“I love you”) rather than a tourism slogan. For an international audience, such
ambiguity weakens brand clarity. A slogan must communicate instantly, without
explanation.
Good
tourism or city branding slogans are clear (“Incredible India,” “Truly Asia,”
“Amazing Thailand”), authentic (reflect local identity), and emotionally
resonant yet linguistically correct. “I Lite U” fails on clarity and
correctness. A foreign visitor might even assume it’s a typo.
From a
language and branding standpoint, “I Lite U” sounds more like a playful typo
than a professional message. English-speaking foreigners are likely to think
it’s broken English (since “lite” isn’t a verb, and “U” is text-speak), be
unsure what it means – is it “I light you,” “I like you,” or “I’m lit up?” –
and perceive Malaysia’s public communication as careless or gimmicky. This
undercuts the goal of projecting sophistication and confidence.
Ask
again: who are we targeting? Those who fall for gimmicks, or those who think
well and carefully before they spend their travel dollars?
Perhaps,
a better campaign slogan would be something like “Many Lights, One City”
with a subheading in Malay – “Ku Petik Bintang-bintang Untukmu.” In this
way, English attracts while the Malay words create curiosity. We get visitors
to participate by googling to find out what the Malay phrase means. Once we get
customers to participate, we are halfway there.
“Ku Petik
Bintang-bintang” also echoes Bukit Bintang – one of the main attractions
we are inviting them to in this campaign.
Furthermore,
“Many Lights, One City” is simple, universal, and elegant. It is easy
for foreigners to understand and remember. It carries Malaysia’s unity and
diversity. Each “light” can symbolize different people, cultures, or
communities – all shining together as one city. It resonates with tourism and
local pride, perfectly matching Malaysia’s multicultural narrative: “Many
races, one nation” → “Many lights, one city.”
It could
also be extended and scaled for the future and for other cities and areas in
Malaysia, avoiding the silo mentality where each ministry runs its own campaign
without a unifying national theme: “Many Lights, One Nation.” “Many
Lights, One Malaysia.”
Light
symbolizes people, hope, warmth, creativity, and faith. It positions Kuala
Lumpur as a city glowing with diversity – authentic, inclusive, and alive.
What Must We Learn from This Episode?
My dear
Malaysians, we often waste precious time debating what is secondary instead of
focusing on what truly matters. And the manner of debate too is often
unhealthy. Our goal should always be what is best for the nation.
While it
is good to have passion about our language or our strategy to bring in
business, we must ensure that we do not allow our emotions to get the better of
us. It is precisely because every decision is, at its core, an emotional act –
for we can never have complete information – that we must discipline our minds
and exercise reasoning with utmost care before reaching a conclusion.
The
problem with many of us – including those who see ourselves as “smart people” –
is our inability to define reality without emotional attachment. Instead of
evaluating both the good and the bad in a person, idea, or policy, we allow
personal bias – whether positive or negative – to shape our perception of
truth. In doing so, even intelligent individuals can act foolishly, as our
emotions cloud judgment and rob our minds of clarity.
The I
Lite U friction is yet another example of misplaced attention – a debate
driven by noise rather than thought. Instead of discussing whether the campaign
is done right in the first place, we allow ourselves to debate something else
entirely.
And in
doing so, we miss the real issue – how to communicate our nation’s story to the
world with wisdom, integrity, and pride.
Peace.
Anas Zubedy
Kuala Lumpur



